While the point may be neither here nor there, I’d attribute the fanatical fighting spirit in the Japanese to cultural ideals, rather than religious ones. Particularly the still resounding impact of Bushido…
F_alk, I am tolerating this thread because, although I disagree with some of the comments, they are (sadly) becoming legit (although misguided) opinions to be used in a debate.
You know i have tended to agree with you Yanny - at least on this thread.
still, F_alk has a (IMO not well made) point.
stuff like
These creeps have been indoctrinated with hatred of the west for hundreds of years,
and
Islam does not understand kindness, they only understand force. Kill all the fuckers, and the problem is solved.
registers as hate speech on just about any radar in a civilized society.
Zooey, I have already stated the biggest difference between beating Japan and beating Al-Quaeda. Japan had a centralized command and control structure. They were able to do something called surrender. Even if we captured Osama Bin Ladin and he signed some sort of “surrender papers”, Al-Quaeda would continue on normal operations. Japan agreed to be subjugated, adopt a constitution, and all the other implications which came with it. That is not possible here.
To bring up a seperate point from the command and control structure, I think it is important to realize the immense respect the emperor of Japan had at the time with the general population of Japan (although the military leaders were capable of replacing emperors). Â The emperor was worshiped. Â When he told the citizens of Japan to stop fighting, they did so, except for some isolated soldiers on remote islands who did not hear the word. Â Had he told them to continue fighting, they no doubt would have fought to the last man, woman and child.
While OBL has a great deal of respect among certain elements in the Middle East, I don’t think they respect him this much. Â In the event we captured or killed OBL, or even if OBL renounced his actions and voluntarily surrendered, I do think AQ would continue. Â I really don’t see an overall surrender happening with every terrorist group out there.
…although I disagree with some of the comments, they are (sadly) becoming legit (although misguided) opinions to be used in a debate.
Calling for the death of a group of people is “becoming a a legit opinion”?
What if i called for the dath of all moderarors of this board: Kill the fuckers ?
(Oh, maybe you would see that as a personal insult - yet it is ok to insult one group of people (all muslims), but not another group of people (all moderators)? )
You have seen (and locked) what happened once i called the death of some(!, and i qualified which) USans a “beneficial” thing in response to several other calls for death?
We had the discussion, and even Janus had agreed that calling or inciting a crime is not covered by the freedom of speech.
Now, explain to me how and why “Kill the fuckers” would have any protection and is NOT calling for a crime?
I hate to tell you F_alk, but that is exactly the viewpoint of a lot of people in the United States. It’s sad and I truely believe that anyone who believes that way is ignorant and stupid, but it is not uncommon. If a comment like that came up in a thread about a different subject, then it would violate forum rules. Unfortunately, it is part of this debate. Some people just can’t get past nativism.
I hate to tell you F_alk, but that is exactly the viewpoint of a lot of people in the United States. It’s sad and I truely believe that anyone who believes that way is ignorant and stupid, but it is not uncommon. …
So, just because many people in Germany during the 3rd Reich thought they were a superior race this was a “legit opinion” ?
Then you must allow that “opinion” as an explanation/excuse for the deeds (atrocities?) that followed that “opinion”.
This was not the case at the Nuremberg Trials.
Again you seem to value one “human right” (of free speech) more than a human life. IMO the right to live is overruling all other rights. Deny someone that right … and many of your states would deny you the right as well.
So, just because many people in Germany during the 3rd Reich thought they were a superior race this was a “legit opinion” ?
Then you must allow that “opinion” as an explanation/excuse for the deeds (atrocities?) that followed that “opinion”.
This was not the case at the Nuremberg Trials.Again you seem to value one “human right” (of free speech) more than a human life. IMO the right to live is overruling all other rights. Deny someone that right … and many of your states would deny you the right as well.
If we were killing people by debating, you would be right. But this is still a debate, meaning that there are opposing sides. If it were the year 1942 and we were debating Germany’s actions, then obviously we could not do so while restricting those from voicing their opinion in favor of Germany.
If you (like I) have a problem with their opinion, then meet them on their own grounds and refute their words with civil discourse.
We had the discussion, and even Janus had agreed that calling or inciting a crime is not covered by the freedom of speech.
dont drag me into this
So, just because many people in Germany during the 3rd Reich thought they were a superior race this was a “legit opinion” ?
Then you must allow that “opinion” as an explanation/excuse for the deeds (atrocities?) that followed that “opinion”.
This was not the case at the Nuremberg Trials.Again you seem to value one “human right” (of free speech) more than a human life. IMO the right to live is overruling all other rights. Deny someone that right … and many of your states would deny you the right as well.
If we were killing people by debating, you would be right. But this is still a debate, meaning that there are opposing sides. If it were the year 1942 and we were debating Germany’s actions, then obviously we could not do so while restricting those from voicing their opinion in favor of Germany.
If you (like I) have a problem with their opinion, then meet them on their own grounds and refute their words with civil discourse.
I don’t know Yanny, this is different than mere “difference of opinion”. A previous g/f (and still close friend) of mine is Islamic, and the kind of “discourse” i read made me want to go kick the $41t out of him. If instead of referring to the arabic/middle eastern people, the focus was on blacks or aboriginals, and the call was made to wipe these people out, then this thread would be locked down pretty quickly.
the difference is, while still racist, marines comments are prompted by the (bigotted) and ignorant position that all muslims (and probably all arabs) are terrorists. doesnt make the comments any more acceptable, but i think its prompted more by ignorance than by racism. if we did like you said, and he called for the extermination of all the blacks, that would be pure racism. w/e. thats the way i see it. hes still ignorant, and the comments are still inflammatory.
Janus, but it seems like you were not that inflamed by his comments.
Just imagine i would replace the set “muslims” and the subset “terrorists” by “USamericans” and the subset “KKK”… then the thread would have looked like this:
Maybe you now understand why i wrote the oterh lines in the other thread: These lines inflamed you quite a lot.
I ask myself: Is that chauvinism or nationalism on your part, that you get excited when someone is critical against your nation, while your countrymen can “cry havok” and your reaction at a maximum is a desinterested shrug? I bet you just want to honour your board-name.
…
If you (like I) have a problem with their opinion, then meet them on their own grounds and refute their words with civil discourse.
They have left the grounds of civil discourse long ago. How can i then be civil and meet them on their own grounds?
I decide to meet them on their own grounds: They are not tolerating others, i do not tolerate that kind of behavior. To “tolerate” intolerance is actually being indifferent. And we had the poem of the german pastor not long ago about where indifference can lead you.
F_alk, you tossing up a straw man here. It’s not as if they are saying “Yeah, taxes really are too high. Oh, and by the way, kill all the Muslims”.
You’ve been around long enough F_alk to know what I feel about this issue. But my view does not matter in this case. Their language is harsh, and I would ask for marine and others to tune down the verbiage, but their viewpoint in the context of the terrorism issue is valid for discussion. People who argue in favor of intelligent design are doing a similar thing. They are ignorant and stupid, but their viewpoint is neccessary to the debate on this message board.
F_alk, you tossing up a straw man here. It’s not as if they are saying “Yeah, taxes really are too high. Oh, and by the way, kill all the Muslims”.
I don’t think that i created a strawman. My example was meant as a “psosible other thread that you now have to allow as well as you created a precedent here”.
You’ve been around long enough F_alk to know what I feel about this issue. But my view does not matter in this case. Their language is harsh, and I would ask for marine and others to tune down the verbiage, but their viewpoint in the context of the terrorism issue is valid for discussion. People who argue in favor of intelligent design are doing a similar thing. They are ignorant and stupid, but their viewpoint is neccessary to the debate on this message board.
@ “I would ask … to tune down the verbiage.”
Why don’t you?
What is hindering you to enforce the rules that you already have?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=1393.0
Some people here regularly break rule (2),
and as racists jokes are only allowed in Mod Forum, there is a whole thread that should be deleted, and the occasional “french joke” should be instantly moved as well.
What hinders you to edit rule (2) so that it includes no discrimination of religion? Mind you, you are “god” (rule 6).
Even if their viewpoint is “all terrorists should be sentenced to death” then that is of a different quality than “kill the (muslim) fuckers”.
It would be non-discriminating and it would adhere to basic rules of a nation of law. If you think that especially the second is somehow not rulable/enforcable, then i truely do not undestand your reasoning.
@ Intelligent Design: I think i do understand what you mean … but find it funny that you complain about my “creation of a strawman” in the first line of your post while you take the last two to do the same (in creating or not creating a strawman, if you don’t think that i created one).
People who argue in favor of intelligent design are doing a similar thing. They are ignorant and stupid, but their viewpoint is neccessary to the debate on this message board.
Do you know the kinds of people arguing for intelligent design?? I mean i think i’m smart, but the intellect of some of the people on THIS bandwagon dwarfs mine.
And you are forgiven.
Janus, but it seems like you were not that inflamed by his comments.
Just imagine i would replace the set “muslims” and the subset “terrorists” by “USamericans” and the subset “KKK”… then the thread would have looked like this:
- some comments on the KKK
with the reply:- USamericans? Kill the fuckers!
Maybe you now understand why i wrote the oterh lines in the other thread: These lines inflamed you quite a lot.
I ask myself: Is that chauvinism or nationalism on your part, that you get excited when someone is critical against your nation, while your countrymen can “cry havok” and your reaction at a maximum is a desinterested shrug? I bet you just want to honour your board-name.
dont presume to understand me because i refuse to engage ignorant people in ignorant discussions based on ignorant opinions. i dont support or approve of their opinions. tolerance. they are allowed to hold any opinion they want, no matter how ignorant or ridiculous it may be, as long as it is just an opinion, fine. i hate it, and i dont like it any more than you do. i choose to ignore the comments. dont sit there and tell me im as bad as them because i choose not to validate their opinion by engaging it, or loudly taking offense to it.
You cant compare Americans to wackos that hide grenades under their own babies Falk.
@M36:
You cant compare Americans to wackos that hide grenades under their own babies Falk.
And you can’t compare wackos to the US Armed Forces that turned entire cities into infernos; or gunned down every man, woman and child in a village because they were there.
The exception proves the rule Marine. We have as much “wacko” blood on our own hands as we accuse others of. The difference is, when we do it, we call it collateral damage, when others do it we call it terrorism.
Thanks NCS.
Switch, killing civilians is never our objective, it is usually an accident.
Oh, is that how it was at Mi Lei? Or Dresden? Just “an accident”?
And how do you pass off Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The United States has ADMITTED that we DELIBERATELY hit CIVILIANS with 2 nuclear weapons (the only nation to ever use them, and we did it on civies!). How do you call THAT an “accident”?
